Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]
AS 13 GMB, Unison and Unite
AS 14 Childrens Rights Alliance for England
AS 15 Participation

Joan Humble: Before we continue consideration of the Bill I have a few preliminary remarks. Members may if they wish remove their jackets during Committee meetings. Please would all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers and so on are turned off or are switched to silent mode? We now proceed with clause by clause scrutiny of the Bill.

Clause 1

Duty to issue apprenticeship certificates: England

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 151 to 156, 181, 182, 185 and 188.

John Hayes: I anticipate your chairmanship with glee, Mrs. Humble. I welcomed you once in the witness stage but I will not miss this opportunity to welcome you a second time as we begin our consideration of these important matters. I also welcome the Minister who will be looking forward with enthusiasm to his first encounters as he attempts to take this entirely imperfect legislation through the House and, as a result, suffers the slings and arrows of discontent, which I wield only in the interests of learners, teachers and the wider British public. My only function in this Committee is to articulate their needs and to champion their interests. I hope I might be forgiven if I make a few opening words in those terms about the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will want to do the same. With your indulgence, Mrs. Humble, as well as

Joan Humble: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have reached the stage of clause by clause, line by line consideration and I expect him to begin speaking to the amendment as soon as possible.

John Hayes: Let me do that, Mrs. Humble. Clause 1(1)(b)(ii) would enable the body issuing an apprenticeship certificate to charge a fee for so doing. This is essentially a probing amendment to determine the reasons and circumstances under which a fee would be charged.
Having heard what witnesses have said about apprenticeships and other mattersthe Bill has been variously described as a missed opportunity and a bureaucratic muddlewe hope that the Minister, in the context of his assumed rejection of our amendment, will say why he feels that the many people who have criticised the Bill are wrong and he is right.
As we begin our albeit imperfect efforts to make this Bill better, I am encouraged by the fact that I have alongside me as ever my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Man and boy, for more than 30 years, we have toiled in the name of righteousness. Over that time I, like Dorian Gray, am largely unchanged. He is more like the picture in the attic. Nonetheless, we are united in our efforts to make the Bill better and, with particular regard to this amendment, to ensure that apprenticeships are worthy of their name. I am concerned that the Government, in meeting their ambitious targets to make entitlement a realitya key part of the Billwill water down apprenticeships and so may damage the quality of that brand. The Minister will no doubt want to take the opportunity to reassure me that is not the case but there are real fears. There are risks associated with radically increasing the number of apprenticeships without putting into place the necessary infrastructural changes to ensure that those apprenticeships teach and test real competencies and make the individuals who engage in them genuinely more employable. That was, and should be, the test of the apprenticeship system, which is why this side of the Committee supports it.
We also hope that the Minister will say something about the nature of the reorganisation, which is pertinent to this part of the Bill and the amendment. It is difficult to understand how the proposed changes will make the system more responsive to employers needs, less bureaucratic and more cost-effective. Indeed, I contend that it will achieve the opposite of all those things; the system will be more cumbersome, bureaucratic and expensive. Nothing I heard from the Ministers this morning reassures me; there seemed to be confusion as to whether the changes will cost more, the same or less, as well about the true motives behind the legislation.
This is a David and Goliath battle; the Minister has all the might of the establishment at his disposal, whereas we are merely armed with the slingshot of truth and the spirit of virtue. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will deal with the contextual matters, because they are highly pertinent to the amendment and vital to a proper understanding of the Bill and our attempts to improve it.
The structure that is put in place must not be inappropriate or, indeed, incapable of delivering a demand-led, highly responsive and slimmed-down system of funding and management of skills. We will go some way to fulfilling our purpose if we implement the very structure advocated by the Leitch report, to which the Government at least pay lip service. We regard such a system as essential to delivering the right kind of skills for our businesses and economy. If we receive more unsatisfactory answers, obfuscation and doubts, our profound reservations about the legislation will, frankly, be set in stone. In anticipation of longer and more interesting speeches to come, I look forward to what the Minister and others have to say about the amendment and its context.

Stephen Williams: I formally welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Humble, and I also welcome all members of the Committee. Having previously served with the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I am sure that we will hear about bed-time reading, delivered in a phonic style no doubt, in the many hours ahead of us. I will lead for the Liberal Democrats on the clauses emanating from the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, while my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will focus on the clauses emanating from the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
I do not have any comments on the amendment under consideration, except to say that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made some general remarks on this important and wide-ranging Bill, and I look forward to the Committees discussions.

Siôn Simon: As this is my first opportunity to address the Committee at this stage of our deliberations, may I formally say what a delight it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble? May I also add how grateful I am to all members of the Committee, particularly the Opposition Front Benchers, for their enthusiasm for the task in hand that they showed during the oral evidence sessions? The sessions were a very measured and intelligent contribution, and I look forward to continuing to work together constructively during our scrutiny of the Bill.
We have heard how much time Opposition Front Benchers have spent with each other doing these kinds of things. It is my first time on the Front Bench in Committee. I have spent plenty of time as a Back Bencher in Bill Committees, mainly in the corridor. I am conscious that this will be a learning process for me and that one learns from ones mistakes. I ask colleagues to be tolerant of my mistakes as I learn through making them. [Interruption.]As one of my hon. Friends says, be gentle with me.
In advance of todays sitting I have sent letters to members of the Committee explaining the amendments that I propose to move to part 1 of the Bill and to let them have sight of draft regulations relating to the use of delegated powers proposed in the Bill. Where draft regulations are not available, I have sought to explain what we expect the regulations or orders concerned will cover. I hope that these letters will assist hon. Members in their consideration of the Bill today and as we move forward.
Last year we signalled our intention to put in place more rigorous and robust arrangements to raise the quality of apprenticeships in England and to underpin those by putting apprenticeships on a statutory basis. Part 1 of the Bill is intended to deliver on that commitment. I do not intend at this point to accept the invitation from the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and to try your patience, Mrs. Humble, with a declamatory re-run of the debate on Second Reading or our oral evidence session this morning. We have both put our cases fairly clearly. He thinks that this is not a good Bill and it is a muddle and a missed opportunity. We clearly think that it is a good Bill, it is important to put these matters on a statutory footing, we have achieved a lot and this will help us to achieve a lot more.
Over the next few weeks, rather than trading these declamatory statements, I want us to put the Bill to the test line by line. I am sure it will be imperfect and we will learn together in exactly what ways, but this is a fundamentally good piece of legislation that does some good things. As we go it through it line by line, I sincerely believe that that is the picture that will emerge. I hope that we will be able to convince Opposition Members to soften their opposition to these measures.
Clause 1 sets out the conditions which must be met for a person to be entitled to an apprenticeship completion certificate. It places an obligation on the English certifying authority to issue a certificate where the conditions in the clause are satisfied. In essence, for the majority of people who are working under an apprenticeship agreement, those conditions are that they must have entered into an English apprenticeship agreement in connection with a recognised English framework. They must have completed the requisite training, attained the required qualifications and met the requirements of the framework. Amendment 15 would remove the requirement for them to pay any fee charged by the authority for the issue of the certificate. 
I understand the concerns behind what the hon. Gentleman described as a probing amendment. I am happy to confirm that it is not our intention to charge apprentices for the issuing of an apprenticeship certificate. In developing the underpinning statutory framework for our apprenticeship programme, we have understandably given careful consideration to the appropriateness of charging fees for issuing an apprenticeship certificate.
We expect that the programme budget which the Government will make available to the National Apprenticeship Service will cover the associated costs. Nevertheless, we want to ensure that the National Apprenticeship Service has an explicit power to make a charge, if so authorised by the Secretary of State, to offset the administrative costs, especially where it is issuing duplicate or copies of apprenticeship certificates which have, for example, been lost. We can therefore be confident that other apprentices will not be subject to unreasonable financial burdens.
Currently, sector skills councils charge for apprenticeship certificates. In the Bill, we will have a power to retain the legislative status quo of the ability to charge for certificates, but there is no intention to charge in the future, although a charge is levied now. I hope that, having given that explanation, Opposition Members may be prepared to withdraw their amendment.
At the same time, I want to speak to a number of technical Government amendments. Amendment 151 is consequential on a substantive amendment to amendment 152 to clause 4. Amendment 152 makes it clear that the English certifying authority for apprenticeship certificates will be the chief executive of Skills Funding. That reflects our original policy intention and it is a simpler and more transparent formulation than that originally envisaged in the Bill. The chief executive will have the power to sub-delegate the function under clause 79. That will ensure that the necessary flexibility is built into the Bill. There are also consequential changes to clauses 35, 38 and 79(5)(a).
Amendments 153, 154 and 155 are consequential on a substantive amendment, amendment 156, which itself is a technical amendment that gives the Welsh Ministers an order-making power to designate the certifying authority in Wales to issue apprenticeship certificates. Designation by order will enable Welsh Ministers to revoke an amended designation, so that they can replace one certifying authority with a new certifying authority. It will also enable arrangements to be made for the transition from one certifying authority to another. For example, it will be important that the outgoing authority transfers to the incoming authority information about people to whom apprenticeship certificates have been issued. That is necessary in case apprentices need to request duplicate certificates from a new authority at any stage in the future.

Nick Gibb: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but I am surprised that amendment 152 is deleting essentially the whole of clause 4 and replacing it with two or three lines. The Minister said that the amendment will bring in the intention as set out in the explanatory notes. However, the explanatory notes say that it is envisaged that the Secretary of State will ask the chief executive of Skills Funding to be the authority that
will delegate this responsibility to the Chief Executive of the National Apprenticeship Service.
Will the Minister confirm whether it is the chief executive of the NAS who will be this authority or the chief executive of Skills Funding?

Siôn Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify that point. The statutory certifying authority will be the chief executive of Skills Funding, but it is anticipated that he will delegate the practical delivery of the task to the chief executive of the NAS.

Nick Gibb: As the Minister is amending the Bill so soon, why is he committed to giving that role to the chief executive of Skills Funding? Why does he not propose an amendment today to give the authority directly to the chief executive of the NAS?

Siôn Simon: Because it is not intended that the statutory authority should rest with the chief executive of the NAS. The statutory, legal, accounting authority is to be vested in the chief executive of Skills Funding. The day-to-day management will, in practice, be the responsibility of the chief executive of the NAS.

Stephen Williams: We will come on to certificates shortly. I just wonder, in this case, who will be the signatory on the certificate itself authorising the issue of the apprenticeship. Will it be the chief executive of Skills Funding or the NAS?

Siôn Simon: Off the top of my head, if we have a policy on the actual physical, graphic signature on the certificate, I am not aware of it. I suspect that that level of detail has not yet been determined and I will certainly undertake to check whether it has been. When it is ultimately determined, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know what has been decided.
The change will also ensure that such transitional arrangements are binding on an outgoing authority, which would not be possible under a simple designation in writing. Government amendments 153 to 156 are necessary to ensure the smooth operation of apprenticeships in Wales.
Amendment 188 is consequent on amendment 156. This is a purely administrative matter. Its effect will be that an order under clause 8 relating to the Welsh certifying authority will not be subject to procedural requirements in the Welsh Assembly Government.

John Hayes: Before the Minister rushes on from amendment 152, he should appreciate that there is an argument that sector skills councils could be issuing bodies. Did he consider that and what representations did he receive about it? Amendment 152 effectively rules that out.

Siôn Simon: We considered that idea. As the hon. Gentleman knows, sector skills councils are currently issuing bodies. We have decided that in future, as the employer bodies, the sector skills councils will be responsible for defining and setting the apprenticeship frameworks and for determining the content of the apprenticeship. The National Apprenticeship Service, as the delivery agency, is the most appropriate body to issue the certificates.

John Hayes: I am sorry to run with this important though detailed point, but the explanatory notes make it clear that sector skills councils are expected to develop frameworks for apprenticeships in conjunction with standard setting bodies. What does that mean in practice? As the Minister knows, sector skills councils are currently issuing bodies. The proposals will diminish their role, will they not?

Siôn Simon: No, there is honestly no diminution of their role. As I said in the evidence session this morning, sector skills councils remain at the heart of the skills system as the employer body. They will determine what goes into an apprenticeship framework at the hands-on, nuts-and-bolts level of substance and content. By having the certificates issued by the National Apprenticeship Service, there will be a single recognisable apprenticeship certificate rather than 27 different certificates issued independently by the various sector skills councils. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, we will discuss the details later.

John Hayes: I understand that and it would be a good argument for having a National Apprenticeship Service with complete competence. However, as we described in this mornings sitting, there is a marriage between the funding agency and the National Apprenticeship Service. It is not only the sector skills councils that have a hand in this, but the principal funding agency and the National Apprenticeship Service. Why can all of this not be done by the National Apprenticeship Service or the sector skills councils? Why do three organisations have to be involved?

Siôn Simon: I cannot agree that the sector skills councils and the National Apprenticeship Service do the same job. The National Apprenticeship Service is an arm of the funding body, which has the job of delivering apprenticeships and to drive the quality and take-up of apprenticeships in the skills system. The sector skills councils are the employers. The employers do a different job and have a different role. I do not think that they would want that role to be done by anybody else. They want to be at the heart of the system and to determine what goes into the frameworks. The National Apprenticeship Service will sit inside the Skills Funding Agency. It will be part of the funding stream and will issue a single, coherent apprenticeship certificate across the board for everybody.

John Hayes: Can I have one last go at this in order to try to generate some light amid the heat? I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for a third or fourth time. Leaving aside the issue about sector skills councils and the National Apprenticeship Service, which I agree have different functions, and leaving aside the sector skills councils, which do it at the moment and will not do it in the future, what is the virtue in having the involvement of the Skills Funding Agency? Could the NAS have sat outside it, independent of that body? Is it not odd, to say the least, that what is essentially a funding body is involved in standards setting? Is it a standards setting body or is it a funding agency? I thought it was a funding agency.

Siôn Simon: The National Apprenticeship Service could have been located outside the SFA and we did consider that. The reason we decided to put it inside the SFA was to create a single body with four clear, coherent, identifiable customer gateways, two of which, for employers, would be Train to Gain and the NAS, to make a streamlined, coherent system. As it is, Opposition Members are criticising us adversely for creating too many bodies without sufficient streamlining. The proposed system has fewer bodies, more streamlining and more synergies; it makes sense to me. On the basis of those remarks, I commend the Government amendments to the Committee and hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw amendment 15.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and for his courtesy in giving way on what is an important matter. It might seem arcane to the casual observer, but getting the relationships rightthe lines of accountability, the reporting functions of the new bodieswill have a big impact on the success or failure of our shared ambition to grow the apprenticeship system. The anxiety I have is that, in an effort to create a new system, the Government have created a more complex, harder to understand, less transparent structure that is not going to be good for either learners or employers. That is at the heart of our complaint.
Our anxiety, reflected in amendment 15, relates to establishing whether the Government will charge. I am still at a lossI hope the Minister might interveneas to why this particular measure forms part of the Bill if there is no intention at all, at any point, to charge.

Siôn Simon: To be clear, there is no intention to make a general charge for the issue of apprenticeship certificates, as is currently done. The intention is that the cost of apprenticeship certificates will be subsumed in the programme budget, although it is thought that the NAS might, in future, wish to consider charging for duplicatesfor copies of certificates that have been lostin order that the administrative cost is kept within a reasonable limit.

John Hayes: That is a helpful explanation. Essentially, although the clause ostensibly might be taken as a green light for charging, the Minister has assured us that there is no such intention and that it is there simply as a catch-all for, as he describes, lost or stolen certificates.

Siôn Simon: To restate my earlier point, there is currently a charge for certificates. SSCs are independent bodies which currently charge. Clearly, the right to charge currently exists. We are simply maintaining the current right to charge, although we are explicitly saying that we have no intention to charge other than, perhaps, in fairly exceptional circumstances.

John Hayes: That is a useful and helpful assurance. As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment. The Minister has given us the opportunity to explore one or two deeper and wider matters, particularly in respect of the Government amendment, which forms a part of the group. It has set the scene for a debate that I expect we will have throughout our consideration about whether the new structure is fit for purpose. Nevertheless, I take the Ministers assurances in the spirit in which they were offered, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 18, at end insert
(f) that the person has undergone supervised training in the workplace..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, after provide, insert
provided that such evidence includes evidence of supervised training in the workplace.
Amendment 47, in clause 25, page 11, line 33, at end insert
(d) must specify that these requirements include some element of supervised training in the workplace..
Amendment 22, in clause 30, page 13, line 35, at end insert
(e) that the employer agrees to provide supervised workplace training..
Amendment 48, in clause 80, page 50, line 6, after agreement, insert
that includes specific requirements for supervised training in the workplace,.
Amendment 113, in clause 80, page 50, line 7, leave out subsection (b).
Amendment 49, in clause 85, page 52, line 13, at end insert
(d) arrangements for courses of training at a college or other institution must include some form of specific training in the workplace..

John Hayes: I rise again on the issue of apprenticeships, the matter absorbing the early parts of our consideration. The amendments in this large group concern work-based training and ensuring that apprenticeships are what most average members of the public and laymen would regard as appropriate. By that I mean that they should be work-based and mentored and, as I said, should confer competences by teaching and testing the things that make people more employable. The workplace element in that is essential.
Most people take that as read, but it is important that we are clear about it. Over time, some apprenticeships have become less work-related than we might wish. That is perhaps understandable, given the difficulties of engaging employers in particular sectors and parts of the country. It is certainly sometimes hard to get employers involved in the apprenticeship system. As an aside, that is why it is important in my estimation and that of my party to incentivise them to do so. However, we shall not discuss the glories of Conservative thinking on that subject but address the amendment specifically.
At no point in the legislation as drafted do the completion conditions specify work-based training, the key element of any real apprenticeship. Supervised work-based training should be part of all apprenticeship frameworks. Indeed, amendment 16 would add in clause 1 the requirement that
the person has undergone supervised training in the workplace.
The other amendments in the group follow in the same spirit. Amendment 17 makes it clear that evidence must include evidence of supervised work-based training where evidence of the appropriateness of an apprenticeship leads to completion. According to the explanatory notes, clause 2
would permit the issuing of a certificate where persons have not entered into an apprenticeship agreement or where they have done the training for the principal qualification before entering into an apprenticeship agreement.
The clause as drafted does not specify what evidence someone would have to provide before being issued with a certificate. It would be possible for a certificate to be provided without any evidence of training by an employer, as the principal qualification for many apprenticeships is an national vocational qualification, and NVQs can of course be studied at a college.
I do not want to exaggerate the problem, but I remain concerned that there are apprenticeships where the apprentices foot barely finds its way into the workplace. The lack of a workplace element in some apprenticeships, particularly a mentored workplace element, is an ongoing cause for concern. I know that the Government have focused on that and have offered assurances that they too believe that workplace training should form part of all apprenticeships, but in the spirit of integrity and straightforwardness that the Minister personifies and illustrated in dealing with the first group of amendments, he will acknowledge that that has been a worry for employers, Government and others. Apprenticeships taught in colleges without enough of the workplace element simply do not do the job that they are supposed to do. They do not equip people properly for the world of work or offer confidence to potential employers. In the end, they do not make people more employable, which has to be the acid test of an apprenticeship.

Graham Stuart: In the light of our discussions this morning, my hon. Friend will be aware of my concern that fulfilling the obligation in the Bill to offer apprenticeship places to everyone could lead to a diminution in the quality of the apprenticeships offered. Many people who gave evidence to the Committee share that view. Does he agree that because of that promise, it is all the more important to put firm guarantees of quality in the Bill, including ensuring that there is genuine workplace involvement?

John Hayes: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right that most peoples vision of an apprentice is of someone learning their trade at the knee of an experienced craftsman in the workplace. However, in recent years, many apprenticeships have been virtual, involving little or no employer engagement. In some cases, employers provide little of the training that the apprentices they employ undertake, most of which is provided by a further education college or independent training provider.
That is not just my view. Two of the leading academics in the field, Professors Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller, describe such schemes as restrictive apprenticeships. Other apprenticeships involve little or no time in the workplace, either in work or in training, as a result of branding training that is not in the workplace programme-led apprenticeships.
One of the doubts that the Conservatives have was articulated admirably by my hon. Friend this morning. In offering an entitlement, the Government could dilute the quality of the apprenticeships that are offered to meet the ambitious targets that they have set. If they aim to entitle everyone to an apprenticeship and set ambitious targets for numbers, there is an obvious temptation to rebadge all kinds of training as apprenticeships, to weaken and dilute the necessary standard and, in so doing, to damage the valuable apprenticeship brand.
The Select Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills expressed a similar concern when it scrutinised provisions for programme-led apprenticeships in the draft Bill, concluding:
Business was clear that for apprenticeship schemes to work they must be employer led and based in the workplace to make them effective...so called programme-led apprenticeships could provide a useful preparation for an employer-led apprenticeship but they are not apprenticeships within the meaning of the proposals in the draft Bill.

Alison Seabeck: On employer-led apprenticeships, my local FE college in Plymouth believes that some of the group training schemes that it runsthey are not necessarily employer led, but they are popular with employersdo not diminish quality. Has the hon. Gentleman come across those schemes?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady is right that there is a lot of extremely useful pre-apprenticeship training. Indeed, the Committee will doubtless debate this at length as we continue our considerations. In order to get disengaged people into training, it is necessary to provide them with bite-sized, accessible, flexible training. That would not be at apprenticeship level, but would ideally precede it. It would be useful, but it would not be an apprenticeship. The important thing is not that we are dogmatic about the character of training, but that we are clear about different levels and types of training and that we do not include too much training under the umbrella title apprenticeship. As I said, that would have the effect of damaging the reputation and the reality of the brand.
The Skills Commission is shortly to publish a report that recommends that programme-led apprenticeships in which learners are involved full time in college courses with the intention of progressing to a full apprenticeship should be rebadged pre-apprenticeship training in exactly the way that I advocated. It argues that programmes of apprenticeships that take place solely in an FE college on a vocational basis tend to
to progress a smaller proportion of learners than other types of PLAs into employer-led apprenticeship.
Ofsted noted that
not all the college courses offered the specific qualifications needed to support entry on to an apprenticeship
and that students finishing these courses had
minimal work experience and an NVQ that had not been assessed in the workplace.
In our anxiety to encourage more people into training, I suspectI accuse Ministers of no ill-will in this regardthat we have included under the banner of apprenticeship kinds of training that should not be there. If we are to revitalise the apprenticeship system, as I want to, we need to be firmer about the frameworks, stricter about the rigour and more certain about the workplace-mentored element. All the evidence from third parties and Select Committees insists that that is the only way to deliver an apprenticeship system which is respected by employers and valued by learners. Indeed, part of the reason for the amendments is to get more people to do apprenticeships. What counts is not just employers perception of what an apprenticeship means, but encouraging people to see them as a desirable route to employment.
In selling apprenticeships, we must be sure that they deliver what they promise, and that is the slight problem with entitlement. I am rather sympathetic to the idea of an entitlement, as long as we can be absolutely certain about the capacity to deliver on it, and that means rebuilding the apprenticeship system from the bottom up. When one hears the great fanfares from Ministers and others about the recent expansion of apprenticeship programmes at Rolls-Royce and similar expansions at other major employers, one is of course pleased, because the apprenticeship schemes at Rolls-Royce, Honda, BT, British Aerospace and others are world class. However, my constituents in Sutton Bridge, in Lincolnshire, live a long way from Derby. Most do not go there regularly, and I suspect that many have never been there in their lives. It therefore matters little to them when they are told that dramatic things are happening at Rolls-Royce in Derby. A potential apprentice cannot get on a bus and go to Derby every morning.
The only way for rural constituencies such as mine, and for small towns and villages across the country, to make the apprenticeship system more attractive to potential learners is to ensure that apprenticeships are available locally through small and medium-sized enterprises. Ironically, the Governments preoccupation with those large employersMinisters are a bit starry-eyed about the glitz and glamour of the corporate sectordisplaces attention from the need to rebuild the apprenticeship system among SMEs, where we could make a significant difference.

Graham Stuart: I, too, support the idea of an entitlement to an apprenticeship, but such an entitlement should surely not be included in a Bill until the Government have delivered it on the ground through an exercise in political will. Merely putting it in a Bill will not, in itself, ensure that it is delivered, and in so far as it does, that might be at the expense of quality.

John Hayes: Leading academics at the Skills Commission and others are concerned that in providing for that entitlement, the Government might do two things. First, they might boost the number of public sector apprenticeships, which is a good thing in itself, but not provide for the rigour necessary to make them worth while. Secondly, they might boost the number of programme-led apprenticeshipsthe term significant expansion has been usedto present headline figures that tell a story that is superficially impressive only until we look at the real competences the apprentices have gained. Therefore, we are concerned that the entitlement will set in motion a stream of public policy levers, which will not be good for the apprenticeship system and, perversely, may do it further damage.
I am not against entitlement in principle, but we must have the mechanisms in place to make that dream a reality for those many young people who could and should sign up for apprenticeships. We want all apprenticeships to be real and employer-based; we want expansive apprenticeships, not restrictive apprenticeships. Apprentices should receive training both on and off the job under the guidance of experienced mentors. Those are the intentions behind amendments 16, 17, 47, 22, 48, and 49. As you will have noted, Mrs. Humble, with all the diligence for which you are known, they are tabled in this manner because they follow each other consequentially through the Bill. At each point, we intend to reinforce the workplace element of an apprenticeship.
Having spoken about amendments 17 and 47, I shall now turn to amendment 48. The words,
that includes specific requirements for supervised training in the workplace,
should be added after agreement to clause 80 on page 50. The reason is clear: it ensures that the apprenticeship functionthe actual carrying out of apprenticeshipsincludes work-based training. Subsection (2) of the amendment ensures that due account is taken of learner needs and requirements in work-based training. Amendment 49 adds the words,
arrangements for courses of training at a college or other institution must include some form of specific training in the workplace.
Clause 85 defines the meaning of an apprenticeship place, but it does not specify the necessity of workplace training. The reference to training at
a college or other institution
does not specify work-based training, which is a vital part of all real apprenticeships.
The determination of Opposition Members on the Committee is that apprenticeships should be fit for purpose. I am sure that the Minister shares our ambitions, and I cannot believe that he is any less an advocate of rigour than I am. I find it impossible to imagine that he will not clamour to accept these amendments in the positive spirit in which they have been proposed, as they are improvements that will make his apprenticeship entitlement of greater significance by giving it greater effect. In that spirit, I happily look forward to hearing what the Minister and other Committee members have to say about them.

Stephen Williams: I am sure that you, Mrs. Humble, and the rest of the Committee will be relieved to hear that I propose to deal briefly with this group of amendments, as we are still on clause 1 and it is 4.49 pm I think that is what it says on the monitor. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is correct that the characteristics of an apprenticeships are a mixture of work-based learning and off-the-job learning, usually provided by a further education college or a private sector provider. That is certainly how a layman would understand apprenticeships, and we are all laymen in this room. An apprenticeship is also a brand. It is very important that the quality of that brand is not diluted.
It is largely for that reason that my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment 113, which would prevent the Government from broadening the definition of apprenticeship training to
any other contract of employment.
That reference appears in clause 80(5)(b). It is important that an apprenticeship is an apprenticeship agreementsome other agreement for employment or training should not be rebadged as an apprenticeship.
I would like the Minister to clarify whether certain scenarios would meet the criteria for an apprenticeship certificate to be issued under the framework. First, does the person need to be an employee? What if someone works for an employer in an unwaged capacity? The Government have their much-vaunted internship programme for unemployed young people. A press release was issued on that, but it does not seem to have been developed any further. Can an intern become an apprentice?
Secondly, what if someone is self-employed? They may be doing the relevant qualificationsNVQs and other formal learningthat will be part of the apprenticeship framework, but who will certify that they have done the work-based training that is essential to become an apprentice if essentially they are apprenticed to themselves or perhaps to a member of their family? In the third scenario, what if someone has done part of the training with another employer or has done the formal qualification with another employer? How will those different elements of the apprenticeship be brought together so that whoever is certifying that someone has met the conditions of the apprenticeship can be satisfied that all the conditions have been met?

Siôn Simon: I shall start with the three scenarios set out by the hon. Member for Bristol, West. I think that I know the answer in each case: all three are in the Bill, but I have to confess that I cannot remember off the top of my head exactly which bit refers to exactly which bit. However, I am sure that someone can look that up afterwards, if the hon. Gentleman is interested.
I shall describe the exceptional circumstance in which it is assumed that unwaged people could be apprentices. Let us say that an apprentice approaching the end of their apprenticeship, loses the employmentthe employer cannot sustain it any longerand they cannot find, despite the vacancy matching service and everyones best efforts, another employed form in which they can continue it, but they can find voluntary work that enables them to do similar work and complete that apprenticeship, but not for reward. It is envisaged that that would be counted. [Interruption.] I am now told that that is in clause 1(6)(b).
With regard to someone who is self-employed, again the opportunity is in the Bill, in clause 1(6)(a), but it is envisaged that the power for self-employed apprenticeships would be used only in very exceptional circumstances, as I believe is currently the case in, for instance, the film industry, in which the conventional industry practice is that although people might work for someone in a conventional apprenticeship-type way, their employment status is freelance. The hon. Gentlemans third scenario, of switching employer, is in clause 30(4). We envisage that as a much more mainstream part of what should be possible under the new structures, because it is the kind of thing that happens all the time. We want it to be the case that within the same framework, an apprentice can change employer during the apprenticeship, transfer over and complete the apprenticeship.

Stephen Williams: For claritys sake, on point about waged people and interns, it is envisaged that for the majority of the apprenticeship period the person should be employed and paid. It would only be in exceptional circumstances, through loss of earnings because of difficulties that the employer has got into, that an apprenticeship certificate would still be issued.

Siôn Simon: That is absolutely right. The fundamental underlying principle of an apprenticeship is that it is a paid job. We have put a power in the Bill which, in very exceptional circumstances, allows someone to complete an apprenticeship with some unwaged work. However, we envisage that being used only in the circumstances that I have described.
Naturally, I do not share the analysis that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made of the Bills deficiency, but I understand and sympathise with the spirit and the intention of his amendments. As he said, I am nothing if not clamorous for quality. This is an occasionand not all of politics is soon which we agree wholeheartedly on the ends and are merely disputing the means. I shall refer to the amendments in detail, then we can move on to talk about the principles behind them.
Amendment 16 would place a further completion condition on the person applying for an apprenticeship certificate under clause 1, and it would require that they have undergone supervised training in the workplace. Amendment 17 would require apprentices applying for a certificate under clause 2 to present evidence of supervised training in the workplace to the certifying authority. Amendment 47 would require the specification of apprenticeship standards for England to include some element of supervised training in the workplace.
Amendment 22 would require the employer to agree to provide supervised workplace training as a condition of the apprenticeship agreement. Amendment 48 would require an apprenticeship agreement for the purpose of the apprenticeship scheme to include supervised workplace training. Amendment 49 would require that for an apprenticeship place to count for the purpose of the apprenticeship scheme, it must include supervised workplace training.
I certainly agree that all apprenticeship frameworks must include supervised training in the workplace. There is no doubt about that, and the Government have never been equivocal about that. Supervised workplace training is central to the apprenticeship experience. It is what all apprentices have a right to expect. It is an experience that all employers who take on apprentices later in their careers will expect them to have. The system of certification that the Bill introduces includes a number of safeguards to ensure that guided workplace learning forms part of the apprenticeship experience.
We will go on to discuss the thrust of the hon. Gentlemans adverse criticisms, which is the notion that under the system as envisaged there is insufficient compulsion on employers to put apprentices in the workplace. It seems a slightly tautologous argument. It is important to pause at this point and note how important it is, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing, to be explicit about the requirements for high-quality guided learning hours away from the work station. An apprenticeship is a job, but it is not just work; it is learning. Although it involves on-the-job learning, it must involve off-the-job learning: theoretical knowledge of the sector, functional skills and so on.
As hon. Members know, we are consulting on the specification for apprenticeship standards for England. We have given assurances that it will include a requirement that all apprenticeship frameworks must set out what instruction and practical experience an apprentice must receive and how many guided learning hours they are to receive per year. The minimum will be 280, which includes guided learning both at work and off-workstation. I can reassure the Committee that we expect supervised training or learning in the workplace to be included as a term of the prescribed form for the apprenticeship agreement. The agreement will have to specify explicitly the quantity and quality of the

John Hayes: I apologise for interrupting, as I should let the Minister finish his sentence. The difference between us is less profound than some might assume, as I think he shares my view about the work-based element of apprenticeships. However, the critical point is whether he thinks that that is involved in the very definition of an apprenticeship. If so, there is a strong argument for including it in the Bill. He is right, of course, that the detail of any particular apprenticeship is not something that could be identified in the Bill, as there are so many different kinds of apprenticeship, but the principle that an apprenticeship must have a work-based elementthat it must be strongly driven by the workplace-mentored elementseems to be a matter of definition that could indeed be included in the Bill.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about definition, but what is missing from his analysis is the fact that an apprenticeship is, by definition, a work-based experience. An apprenticeship is a job. I do not know whether one can be sold an Aunt Sally

John Hayes: It is a marvellous mixed metaphor.

Siôn Simon: At least I paused halfway through. What is happening is that we are somewhere between being sold a pup and offered an Aunt Sally. We have debated programme-led apprenticeships, on which I think we also agree substantively. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that programme-led apprenticeships can be a very useful pathway to get young people into apprenticeships. However, as he knows, and as we all need to make clear, as long as a programme-led apprenticeship remains college-based, rather than being a job, it is not an apprenticeship under the terms of the Bill. We do not currently count it as an apprenticeship, and it will not be counted as one.

John Hayes: In that case, will the Minister give us an assurancehe can give it now; he does not need further noticethat from now on, programme-led apprenticeships will not be called apprenticeships but will be called something different? Clearly it was a mistake to call them that in the first place.

Siôn Simon: It is certainly the case that programme-led apprenticeships and what I believe is termed the brand of programme-led apprenticeships are being consulted on now. I cannot remember off the top of my head which consultation that is part of, but it is definitely part of a consultation.

John Hayes: Perhaps I can be helpful. The Minister is consulting me. This is the consultation, and I am telling him to get rid of programme-led apprenticeships, not in substance but in name. Of course we believe that a lot of good work is done leading up to a full apprenticeship. Of course we know that people need to be prepared before they can take that step, but we should not call them apprenticeships. He has more or less said it. Will he have the guts to stand up now and say that he will get rid of them?

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman says that I have more or less said it. I have certainly told him that the matters he is discussing, such as how programme-led apprenticeships are to be presented and what they are to be called, are under review and out for consultation. It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the outcome of the review and consultation, particularly given that Lord Young of Norwood Green is the Minister with responsibility for apprenticeships.
To return to the reason why I started talking about programme-led apprenticeships, much of the hon. Gentlemans discourse has suggested that programme-led apprenticeships are somehow integrated in the mainstream of apprenticeships or in other arrangements. They are not. An apprenticeship is a job and can be conducted only at work. Where else are jobs done, but at work? Under the Bill, an apprenticeship must be a job. The apprentice must be employed under a contract of service. The Bill also makes it clear that an apprenticeship is not just a job, but must include a formal training component. To specify that a job must occur in the workplace would be a truism.

John Hayes: The Minister is a courageous man so I am disappointed that he has not gone the extra mile and followed through the logic of his argument to say that programme-led apprenticeships should not be called apprenticeships. He has said that apprenticeships should be employer-based. How many employers of current apprentices are providers, whose sole or principal business is the provision of training?

Siôn Simon: I cannot give that number off the top of my head, but I will look into it. If the information is available, I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. My point remains that Opposition and Government Members want exactly the same thing and are more in agreement than it might appear. We are all committed to apprenticeships being jobs that occur at work and which contain a high-quality formal learning portion.

Nick Gibb: I am following this debate with great interest. Should not the employer be engaged in the same business that the apprenticeship will give rise to? If the employer is a training provider, the apprenticeship certificate should relate to the business of training and not to engineering, for example. Engineering may be the subject of the apprenticeship, but it is not the business of the employer if he is a training provider. Is that not the issue?

Siôn Simon: No, I do not think so. In only a small minority of cases will the employer be a training provider. The more conventional model is for apprenticeship employers to be businesses. Off the top of my head, they make up about 55 or 60 per cent. The rest break down into a dozen or so categories, of which training providers are a relatively small proportion. It is more conventional for there to be an employer, a learner and a training provider to provide the training portion.
There are arrangements through which training providers and coalitions of companies can club together in group training associations, which are now called apprenticeship training associations. They effectively hire out apprenticesthat might be the wrong termto smaller businesses that would struggle to bear the burden of a full-time apprentice. A group organisation can share the burden. That model has been very successful in Australia, where about 20 per cent. of apprentices are retained in that way. It is not something that we would like to lose. It is something that we intend to encourage and extend but it does remain a relatively small part of the total package.

John Hayes: I share the hon. Gentlemans enthusiasm for group training associations. Are the Government planning to give extra resources to group training associations to make that vision a reality?

Siôn Simon: We are looking into, again formally, how we can develop and extend the work of group training associations.

Graham Stuart: The concern on both sides of the Committee is that we should not have fake jobs as part of an apprenticeship scheme. As the Minister rightly says, group training, where small employers share employees who genuinely go into the workplace, would be fine. The fear is that, in order to meet statutory and mandatory targets, people might be employed by no more than a training company which does not bring people properly into workplaces where they can learn about the operation of the industry for which they are training.

Siôn Simon: I have not seen any evidence that group training associations or apprenticeship training associations are culpable in that respect. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, the general sense in the sector is that they are a good thing, whose particular role will be to make it easier for smaller businesses to take on apprentices, perhaps in more rural areas that might not otherwise be able to bear the burden. The issue of fake jobs is the Aunt Sally I talked of earlier. I do not think that there are lots of fake apprenticeships. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, which I think relates to the programme-led apprenticeship example, but we have moved beyond that. It is clear that an apprenticeship is a job. I do not see fake apprentices doing fake jobs. The apprenticeships in place now are of high quality across the board and these measures will develop and extend that.

Stephen Williams: I want to close off this point about group training associations. I tabled new clause 13which at this glacial rate of progress I doubt there will be time to discusswhich asks that the new national apprenticeship service should include promoting group training associations in its remit. The Minister mentioned that that is being looked at. Is it his intention that these will be promoted by the NAS because I understand that that would be welcomed by small businesses represented by the Federation of Small Businesses, and not just in rural areas? The one place they exist at the moment is Londonthere are many small employers in cities as well. They find the bureaucracy of accessing funding and meeting all the requirements of apprenticeships quite difficult and a group training association might help them.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman makes a welcome and constructive intervention. I can tell him and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that I have just remembered that we have announced a prospectus for a £7 million funding stream to be published in April to help fund the expansion costs of ATAs and GTAs, which I know will warm the cockles of his English heart.
The apprenticeship agreementthe key contract between the apprentice and the employerwill set out the core responsibilities and what each can expect as part of the apprenticeship experience. As I said earlier, I have written to hon. Members setting out the prescribed terms that we consider an apprenticeship agreement should cover. Our intention is that the agreement should state that the employer should provide opportunities to learn and practise the skills demanded in the apprenticeship framework and will provide supervision and mentoring support to the apprentice.
Clause 2 is intended to ensure that the apprentices who, for example, might have completed the course of training for the principal qualification before entering into an apprenticeship and who would not therefore satisfy all the requirements in clause 1, can still receive their apprenticeship certificate.
I stress, as we have stressed in the explanatory notes, that we would only expect certificates to be issued under clause 2 in the most exceptional of circumstances. Apprenticeships in this position would need to satisfy all of the requirements of the framework and we would expect the certifying authority to ensure that appropriate work-based learning has been undertaken during the course of the apprenticeship, so that a certificate can be issued.
I hope that Opposition Members will accept that we share their concerns about this issue and that supervised work-based training will form part of all apprenticeships, including those offered as part of the apprenticeship scheme part 4, and that there is already adequate provision for that, both in the Bill and in the core documents that flow from it. Having given these reassurances, I hope that they might be prepared to withdraw their amendments.
Amendment 113 is slightly different. Clause 80(5) defines apprenticeship training very broadly as that connected with:
 (a) an apprenticeship agreement,
(b) any other contract of employment, or
(c) any other kind of working in relation to which alternative English
completion conditions apply under section 1(5).
Removing paragraph (b) would mean that apprentices would either have to have an apprenticeship agreement to fall under the chief executives responsibility or would need to be in other kinds of work outlined in paragraph (c). The Government have made very clear their commitment to apprenticeship agreements, and the inclusion of paragraph (b) is not intended to undermine that commitment. When the chief executive takes on responsibility for apprenticeships training provision, he will inherit apprentices who will not have apprenticeship agreements but who may have acceptable contracts with employers all the same. The inclusion of paragraph (b) allows current apprentices and employers to continue their arrangements as they stand, without needing to sign retrospective agreements.

Stephen Williams: For the sake of clarification, the Minister says that the justification for clause 80(5)(b), which would be affected by this group of amendments, is that the chief executive of the SFA will inherit apprentices who do not currently fall within the parameters of this legislation. Does that mean that this provision will only apply in the short term, so there should be a sunset clause in the Bill relating to it?

Siôn Simon: I take the hon. Gentlemans point. Yes, in the first instance the intention is as I have described and he has just summarised. However, it is conceivable that there may be other groups in the future, for reasons that are not covered by the explanation that I have just given, who might profit from the same transitional arrangements. For that reason, there is no sunset clause. Nevertheless, the clear intention is to move to a position where all new apprentices have apprenticeship agreements as soon as possible, which will render the whole issue historical. I hope that, having given that explanation, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: This has been a useful debate at the beginning of our consideration on what we see as the core elements in an apprenticeship. We have heard from the Minister that he shares our determination to ensure that apprenticeships are indeed worthy of the name, which means that they should have a significant work-based element. As he was speaking about programme-led apprenticeships, I thought that he began in a kind of ursine fashion and ended in a soricine fashion. He began like a bear and ended like a shrew, as he claimed, or certainly flagged up, that he was about to acknowledge that apprenticeships that did not have a work-based element should not be called apprenticeships, but ended by saying that he wished to consult further on that contention, as though there was some doubt about it. One may think, as I do, that they should be called something different. It is not that they lack value; it is absolutely right that there should be all kinds of pre-apprenticeship training.

Siôn Simon: I think that the hon. Gentleman might inadvertently have said that I said that they should be called something else. I did not say that; I said that his point was reasonable and that the question of whether the training should be differently branded was worthy of discussion. That is being considered, and if he awaits the outcome of the review and the consultation he might be happily surprised.

John Hayes: The Minister has moved from being a shrew to being a tame shrew. Not only is he not prepared to follow through his original bold assertions, but he is not even confident of the outcome of the consultations. Indeed, he might change his mind halfway through if there is a sufficiently strong case that those programmes should be considered apprenticeships, yet he acknowledged in earlier that the very definition of an apprenticeship was that it was related to employmentbased in a job as he put itwhich means in the workplace. Surely then he simply cannot have an apprenticeship without a significant work-based element.
You will remember, Mrs. Humble, that when in 1994 Lord Hunt of Wirral, then a Member of Parliament and Secretary of State for Employment, created the idea of the modern apprenticeship its calibre and status were signified by the fact that it would be the equivalent of A-levelsa level 3 qualification. As the excellent report soon to be published by the Skills Commission points out, in 2000, the Government renamed a level 2 national traineeship scheme an apprenticeship, so at a stroke adding many existing training places to the number of apprenticeships. We know that there is pedigree, or perhaps I should say history, in this regard: apprenticeships can be what one chooses them to be.

Stephen Williams: There is form.

John Hayes: I was trying to be generous, as we have only just begun our work, but the hon. Gentleman is right. There is form by Governments of different persuasions, and certainly in this case, by a Government of only one persuasion. In 2000, apprenticeships were rebadged to increase their number. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee said that most of that increase was the
result of converting government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeship.
It is not just the Opposition, in this instance in alliance with the Liberal Democrats, who are suspicious about the definition of apprenticeships. All kinds of other authoritative bodies and organisations have looked at the background and concluded that it is tempting for Ministers to rebadge training as apprenticeships, given that they have set out an ambition to increase the number impressively and quickly, and all the more so given that they have established an entitlement to apprenticeships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness made clear in a pertinent intervention. It would be immensely embarrassing for Ministers, if one, two or three years down the line, it became clear that such an entitlement was nothing more than an empty promise. One therefore imagines that in their less noble moments they might consider rebadging other training as apprenticeships to avoid that eventuality.

Graham Stuart: What if there is such a failure? If a shortfall in the number of apprenticeships against the number set down in the Bill produced no diminution of quality, how could a learner who wanted an apprenticeship, as promised in the Bill, demand an apprenticeship? Would a judicial remedy be available?

John Hayes: My suspicion is that the Government have not anticipated the eventuality that my hon. Friend describes. If an entitlement is established with no realistic prospect of being able to deliver it, it might be challenged by, say, a learner who is desperate to be an apprentice but who is unable to find a place. I mentioned my constituency in rural Lincolnshire where, frankly, the chances of delivering an apprenticeship entitlement, given the local economic profile, are hard to imagine. I do not want to be unnecessarily sceptical, but it is hard to imagine growing apprenticeship numbers sufficiently in my constituency and many others to deliver speedily on the entitlement. Potential learners will be appalled if that happens, which is why I suspect that it is entirely possible that the Government will change the definition of an apprenticeship to suit their policy ambitions; I am not citing the noble ambitions that the Minister began with, but the rather less impressive ones with which he ended.
Because we suspect that the Government will attempt to swell apprenticeships by adding training for existing employees that is not sufficiently work-based, or training, particularly in the public sector, that should not count as an apprenticeship, we intend to press the amendment to a Division. This is an important matter, and it should be on the record. Given the Ministers bold assertion that he agrees that this lies at the heart of the definition of an apprenticeship, I look forward to his voting with the Opposition, so that we can begin, as a Committee, as one in our ambition.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. Can we divide on amendment 47?

Joan Humble: Amendment 47 will be called when we reach the clause to which it applies.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Issue of certificates by the English certifying authority: supplementary

Amendment made: 151, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out from authorising to end of line 11 and insert
the English certifying authority to charge a fee for supplying a copy of an apprenticeship certificate..(Mr. Simon.)

This amendment is consequent on amendment 152.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: Our earlier remarks showed that we have some doubts about clause 3. Although there was some discussion about the matter, will the Minister set the clause in context so that we can explore those doubts more fully?

Siôn Simon: I am not sure whether I can add much to what we said earlier. The clause allows the authority designated to issue apprenticeship certificates to charge a fee for doing so, if authorised by regulations. It also contains a power to make regulations to supply, and charge for, copies of such certificates. As I said earlier, I assure the Committee that, while the clause includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable a certifying authority to charge a fee, we expect that the public funding that we make available to the National Apprenticeship Service will be sufficient to cover the costs of issuing certificates. However, we want to ensure that we have the ability to make regulations that will allow fees to be charged in the future to meet, for example, the administrative costs of issuing duplicate or replacement certificates.

John Hayes: In that spiritthe Minister spoke about this earlier and gave important assurances that are now on the recordwill he be clear about the guidance that will be offered? Enabling charges in the circumstances that he described for a duplicate certificate and facilitating charges at some unspecified future time seem qualitatively different from the issue of certificates per se. The Minister clearly stated that that is not the intention, but it would be helpful if he gave some assurance that the guidance and regulations will make the purpose in this part of the Bill clear.

Siôn Simon: I am not sure whether I understand what kind of guidance the hon. Gentleman means. It is pretty straightforward that the Bill provides a power for the Secretary of State to issue a regulation giving the certifying authority the ability to make a charge at some point in future. We have no intention to make such a charge at present. Sector skills councils currently charge £30 per apprenticeship certificate and any future charge for duplicates would be at cost and not-for-profit; I unequivocally state that that is the current situation. The Bill allows the Secretary of State a power to make a regulation in future, and I have been quite clear on the circumstances in which such a power could be used. I do not see how we could give any more guidance.

John Hayes: I do not want to do this matter to death. The Minister has been clear and I take him at his word. Our amendments, including one to delete this whole part of the Billit was not selectedwere stimulated by worries about charging per se. However, the Minister has made it sufficiently clear that that is not the intention. On the face of it, the Bill could be used to trigger such a regime, but I am confident that he has no intention of bringing it into being. As Ministers, we certainly would not do so. On that basis, I am happy to say no more.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

The English certifying authority

Amendment made: 152, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from authority to end of line 23 and insert
means the Chief Executive of Skills Funding..(Mr. Simon.)

The effect of this amendment is that the Chief Executive of Skills Funding will be the English certifying authority for the purpose of the issue of apprenticeship certificates.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

The Welsh certifying authority

Amendments made: 153, in clause 8, page 5, line 12, leave out by the Welsh Ministers and insert under this section.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 156.
Amendment 154, in clause 8, page 5, line 15, leave out by the Welsh Ministers and insert under this section.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 156.
Amendment 155, in clause 8, page 5, line 17, leave out by the Welsh Ministers and insert under this section.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 156.
Amendment 156, in clause 8, page 5, line 20, at end insert
( ) Designated means designated by an order made by the Welsh Ministers..(Mr. Simon.)

This technical amendment provides for designation of the Welsh certifying authority to be made by order of the Welsh Ministers.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: According to the explanatory notes, clause 8 provides
that the certifying authority for apprenticeships in Wales will be persons designated for that purpose by the Welsh Ministers.
Ministers will be aware that, in its report on the draft Bill, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee expressed concern about the lack of consultation on powers provided under the legislation with respect to Wales. The Government have tabled a series of amendments to clause 8. The Select Committee concluded:
As the legislation would apply to Wales, we wrote to the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly for Wales to invite their views. In reply, both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Enterprise and Learning Committee of the Assembly asked fundamental questions about the application of the provisions in the draft Bill to Wales. The supporting documentation with the draft Bill did not explain how the proposed provisions would be implemented in Walesthe draft Bill would, for example, impose duties on the Learning and Skills Council but it has an England only remitand no reference was made to apprenticeships in Wales. The Enterprise and Learning Committee was of the opinion that the UK Governments legislative approach was unsatisfactory and does not reflect well on the UK Government or the Welsh Assembly Government. The content and tone of the representations from the two committees raised concerns that consultation on the application of the draft Bill in Wales was inadequate and that it required further consideration.
We are concerned, and have raised the matter with the Minister. He will know that when similar concerns were expressed to the Minister for Schools and Learners, he reinforced our concerns with his answer that
you could take more time in coming up with firm draft where you have ironed out everything with Wales and the Welsh Assembly Government, or you can publish a Bill and have this sort of scrutiny, while we carry on our discussions with the Welsh Assembly Government, and then once it comes into something that is then introduced to Parliament...we will at that point have to be clear with our friends in the Welsh Assembly Government which bits they want and which bits they do not.
That was not one of his more articulate moments, as I am sure that he would be only too happy to acknowledge.
We have grave concerns that the Department has treated consultation with the Welsh Assembly Government and the National Assembly for Wales as an afterthought. The consultation on the operation of apprenticeships in Wales and the application of draft legislation in Wales have clearly been inadequate and we recommend the Government rectify that deficiency before the provisions in the Bill

Jim Knight: I did not catch something that the hon. Gentleman said. How did he think that the Welsh Assembly Government had been treated?

John Hayes: I was quoting the Minister of States response when the matter was raised with him. My own contention is that the matter was not handled properly in terms of consultation and that was clearly a view reflected by those in the Assembly and those associated with Wales in the House. If they have concerns, I regard it as my duty to make those concerns known at this stage of scrutiny.
It would not be the first time that the Government have run into problems in that regard, as the Minister well knows. In previous Bills, the Welsh dimension, in terms of the application of legislation and the nature of consultation, has been a minefield for Government Ministers. I hope that the Minister will be able to offer assurances that those matters have been dealt with properly, that the concerns expressed by others have been listened to and acted on, and that there is absolute clarity about the way in which the Bill will apply in Wales. Unless we have those assurances, how can we possibly agree to clause 8?

Siôn Simon: I am Welsh, although I sit for the nations finest city and manufacturing hub, Birmingham.

Stephen Williams: I would like to say for the record that I am also Welsh, but I sit for Englands finest city, Bristol.

Joan Humble: Order. I do not think that we should be debating the finest city in England.

Siôn Simon: We will not resolve that matter today.
The words quoted by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings are indeed disappointing. They do not reflect my understanding of what has happened and do not characterise the relations that I have had, although I admit that I come relatively late to the process, with the Welsh Assembly Government. As he knows, the devolved arrangements for Scotland and Wales are separate from the English arrangements. As part of the devolution settlement, it is for devolved Administrations to decide exactly how they want to be involved in the process. We wrote to the Welsh Assembly Government. They gave instructions to us on the clauses relating to apprenticeships that they wanted to apply, and counsel then instructed. A number of amendments have been drafted in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh Government. Most of them are relatively minor, but their arrangements are slightly different and they have asked for certain amendments to reflect that. Where we have been happy to facilitate that, there has been nothing but joy in the relations I have had with the Welsh Assembly Government.

John Hayes: I appreciate that it is difficult for the Minister to be specific. I am sure that he has received inspirational guidance on the clauseas he will have had on all the clauses in the folder that sits before himbut clearly there is an ongoing concern about the way in which legislation affects the Principality. The expressions of disquiet regarding the Bill, reflected by the comments of the Select Committee in respect of the draft Bill, are not the first time that doubts have been raised about the process and how we consider the way in which legislation applies across England and Wales. In articulating those concerns, I hope that I might have done the House, the Committee and even, may I say, the Government a service. I just hope that the Minister will agree perhaps to come back to the Committee when he has had a chance to reflect and study this matter more carefully with absolute assurances that the doubts that I have raised about clause 8 and its application in Wales will be addressed or have been addressed. I hope that that is reasonable.

Siôn Simon: The hon. Gentleman is immoderate in his reasonableness. I would have it no other way. But I am not sure that there is much that I can come back to him with by way of reassurance beyond where we already are. I honestly would if I could. I understand the sentiment. I agree that the words of the Select Committee are harsh, worrying and disappointing. Our relations with the Welsh Assembly Government have not been anything like that. There have been no difficulties. I do not in any way mean to diminish the importance of the Select Committees views on the matter, which have been looked at very seriously and given full account. Perhaps it is significant that those words come not from the Welsh Assembly Government but from the Select Committee. Perhaps he can draw some comfort from that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Contents of apprenticeship certificate

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, at end insert
(e) the qualifications that have been successfully completed, and
(f) the employer or employers with which the apprentice has trained..

Joan Humble: With this we may discuss the following: amendment 108, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, at end add
(e) the name of the further education college where a course of training has been completed..
Amendment 234, in clause 9, page 5, line 27, at end insert
(e) the name of the further education college or other training provider where a course of training for the apprenticeship has been completed..

John Hayes: We are now speeding through our scrutiny and have reached clause 9. It relates to the contents of apprenticeship certificates, but it does not include provision to specify which qualifications have been taken, such as NVQs, BTECs, or which employer has provided training. Those are important aspects of any apprenticeship. Our desire, as expressed previously, is to ensure that apprenticeships reach the highest standard. Everyone who completes one should be proud of having done so, in the knowledge that they have been through a process that is testing and has conferred real, practical competences.
As you know, Mrs. Humble, I am passionate about elevating the practical. I believe in the empowerment that comes from craft learning. I am wholly committed to the idea of vocational education, standing alongside academic achievement as a way of delivering personal fulfilment and collective value. That is why I am so keen on apprenticeships. If we are going to shape my vision into something practical we have to be clear about what we demand of every apprenticeship.
We talked earlier about work-based learning. Now we are talking about being specific about qualifications and the character of employer training. Critically that would ensure that the schools matched the specification and vice versa. The amendments ensure that future employers are aware of the skills level and qualification of a candidate and that they have been through some form of employer-based training. That is directly beneficial to employers. David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce said in response to the Opposition Green Paper on the subject:
The reputation of a good apprenticeship must not be undermined by the need to meet targets. We wouldnt want to see young adults put through classroom led apprenticeships with only a small amount of work based learning just because they are easier to deliver. Real commitment to employer led apprenticeships is vital, otherwise the system will fail our young adults.
We want the framework to be tight and the stipulations clear. We want everyone, both employers and learners, to know exactly what comprises an apprenticeship, hence the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is in the spirit that inspired amendments on previous clauses.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments 108 and 234, which no doubt they will speak to at some length. In a similar spirit, they would stipulate that the name of the further education college at which training occurred be added to the list that I have outlined. That would be a valid addition, in that it would ensure that training had occurred through a recognised supplier thereof. The presence of the name of an FE college on the certificate would make it even more important that the employers name be registered, too. That would prove that work-based training had occurred in one case and that training in a collegea proper place of educationhad taken place in the other.
The amendments seem to me to be hand in glove, as the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are, thus far at least, on the Bill. I wonder whether there might later be a separation between the hand and the glovelet us hope not. With the intention of firming up apprenticeships in the way I have described, I happily commend the amendment to the Committee.

Stephen Williams: I do not know whether we are hand in glove, but perhaps we are part of a group training association just for the purposes of clause 9, because our amendments are indeed complementary.
The Minister, in our long discussion on clause 1, in effect admitted that no particular thought seems to have been given to the design of the apprenticeship certificate, because we do not even know who will be the signatory of the authority.

Siôn Simon: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, that is a little sweeping and harsh. I said that I was not absolutely certain whose signature would be at the bottom, but there is already quite a lot of detail and specificity in the Bill about what will be on the apprenticeship certificate. Obviously, a lot of thought has gone into that. I would hate to denigrate the thinking powers of all those who have been doing such work.

Stephen Williams: I accept what the Minister has said. It is certainly not my intention to be harsh to him or to denigrate the efforts of others; it is not in my nature to be like that. However, if I were an apprentice who had worked and studied in Bristol, I would be proud to have on my apprenticeship certificatehowever it was designed and whoever authorised itthat I was employed by, for instance, Rolls-Royce or Airbus and that I had done my engineering training at the excellent City of Bristol college facilities nearby. That would be similar to what is provided whenever someone receives a certificate from another training provider, such as a university. I have a BA in history and it is important to me that it was awarded by the university of Bristol. I think that an apprentice, whether from the city of Bristol or the west of England in general, would like it to be shown on the certificate on their wall that the City of Bristol college was the excellent institution at which they were trained.

Jim Knight: I would be fascinated to know whether the hon. Gentlemans A-level certificates include the name of the institution at which he studied for them, assuming that he has some. If they do not, is he very disappointed that the name of the institution is not shown on his certificates?

Stephen Williams: The Minister is asking me a trick question in asking me to think back to when I last looked at the Welsh Joint Education Committee O-level and A-level certificates, or the S-level certificate; by the way, I got a distinction in history. Whether it was specified that it was at Mountain Ash comprehensive school, I do not recall.
Certainly, when one goes on to achieve a higher level of qualification beyond the compulsory age of school leaving, it is normal for the institution at which one has studied to be specified on the certificate. I do not think that my colleagues and I, or the Conservatives, have tabled unreasonable amendments. I hope that, in the friendly fashion that we are conducting our discussions this afternoon, the Government will be minded to accept them.

John Hayes: The virtue of the employer on the certificate is, of course, that it might add to the employability of the person who has received the certificate. If someone has done an apprenticeship at Rolls-Royce, it would be worthy, given the status of that business. It would be the same with many small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency. It seems extraordinary that we are embarrassed about putting the name of an employer on a certificate, given that we want only good employers that have some status, from which the apprentice might confer a benefit, to be involved in apprenticeships.

Stephen Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is entirely reasonable for an apprentice to feel proud of wherever they have trainedwhether with a multinational company, such as Rolls-Royce, or a SME, which may be a supplier of that multinational and therefore would have a working relationship with it.
Finally, this discussion leads me to ask the Minister about the responsibility for the training records of the apprentice. I have never been an apprentice, but I do have a professional qualification and one goes through much the same process of needing to have a jobas the Minister says, that is essentialand having to undertake work-based training and studying in relation to the job. In my case, that was with a private sector training provider. Normally, to get a professional qualificationmine is from the Chartered Institute of Taxationpeople must present evidence of all their training for the certificate to be issued. Therefore, I wonder what evidence the apprentice or the employer will have to present to show that all those components have been satisfied, and who is responsible for keeping that record?

Siôn Simon: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned how proud he would be to be an apprentice at Airbus in Bristol, I want to mention that I have relatively recently visited Airbus in Bristol and met some apprentices there. I can tell him that, although I am to my core a Welsh Brummie, I would also be very proud to have been an apprentice at Airbus in Bristol. It is a very fine company, which is providing some very fine training and learning in the workplace.
I understand entirely where Opposition Members are coming from with these amendments, and I have a good deal of sympathy with their approach. On balance, we have decided not to accept their amendments, although I should add that clause 9(2) provides the power to make regulations to specify that other matters be included on the certificate. I will go through the counter-arguments against their amendments, but I will do so with the proviso of saying that theirs is a good argument and that, over time, if matters appear otherwise, the ability will exist in the Bill for other matters to be included.
I need to stress a point that we mentioned earlier in our discussion about why the certifying authority is the NAS, rather than the sector skills council. One of the reasons is the uniformity of the certificate. For the first time, a consistent, clearly recognisable certificate will exist across England to mark the successful completion of an apprenticeship. That is good for both employers and apprentices, and it is an important part of what we are trying to do.
In specifying the information to be included in the certificate, it is essential to strike a balance between setting out a clear statutory framework, ensuring that the information that the apprentices and employers needs appear on the certificate, and placing unnecessary burdens on individuals, providers and employers and obfuscation through a surfeit of information, which, as we all know, is always a danger. That is why the clause keeps to a minimum the information required for the certificate to be effective. It will include the name of the holder, the level of the apprenticeship and the framework and sector to which it relates.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and with which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings agreed. The stature of the institutions in which the work is done and the learning provided can attach to the apprenticeship and therefore to the individual. We need to be clear that the authority that the certificate is designed to express is vested in the NAS. It is a single national scheme, with a single national certificate. That is how we intend clearly to express the authority of the certificate, rather than by doing so through the institutions.
We considered the case for including additional information carefully, including the things that the amendments cover. We concluded that to include qualifications that have been successfully completed would be a duplication and, as such, unnecessary. The apprenticeship frameworks will set out the qualifications that need to be achieved to be eligible for a certificate. That information will be publicly available, and more importantly, apprentices will also receive certificates from the appropriate awarding bodies for each qualification that they achieve. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat that certification on the apprenticeship completion certificate.
We also concluded that to include the employer or employers was, on balance, not desirable. First, we do not want an apprenticeship certificate to be a CV. We expect apprentices to list their career history on their CV, not on their apprenticeship certificate. Secondly, the counter-point to the one made articulately and elegantly by the hon. Member for Bristol, West is that we want parity of esteem for the programme across the sector. We do not want differentiation of esteem based on the institutions at which apprentices have studied or worked.
There is also a practical difficulty with the work aspect. As we said when debating a previous group of amendments, apprentices might have undertaken training with several providers. All of a sudden, there might be seven different workplaces and seven different providers on the certificate and things will start to look unclear.
As I have said, a good, valid case has been made, and we have considered it carefully. The power to add information later is in the Bill.

Stephen Williams: I do not think that the Minister has dealt with my point about training vehicles. He might have a case for saying that he may not want several employers and training providers to be listed on the certificate. None the less, having that information together in a training record is important.

Siôn Simon: There are two issues. On what training the apprentice has done, the assumption is that that will be covered by the apprenticeship framework, which comprises the syllabus that the apprentice studied. On what evidence of completion will be sought and who will seek it, the NAS will seek evidence covering all elements of the framework, including knowledge and competence in occupational and functional skills. A training record, such as the one described by the hon. Gentleman, will be held at the Skills Funding Agency as part of the individual learner record, although I am not sure whether it will contain the detail that he may have envisaged in his question. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes: Again, I take at face value the Ministers assurance that he has some sympathy with my amendment and those of the Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, he has at least hinted that the Government might return to the issue in guidance.

Siôn Simon: I did not really intend to hint that we had a plan to return to the issue; I do not think that we do. We have concluded that the best way to proceed is as we have described. We recognise that arguments such as those made by hon. Members are valid and reasonable; we considered them ourselves. We have included a power in the Bill, so that if an overwhelming case emerges in future, we will be able to include additional information further on. However, that is not quite the same as saying that we have a plan to return to it.

John Hayes: How clever of the Minister to recognise that that is not the same thing. However, that does at least provide the scope for a change of view at some later juncture, as he suggested. I share the view of the hon. Member for Bristol, West that, on balance, there are pros and cons. He is right that one of the cons is that there could be a gradation or differentiation between apprenticeships on the basis that some might be deemed to be taught at a better place and supervised by a bigger employer with a more famous name. However, I am not sure whether that is a bigger argument in the end than the one that says that clarity about apprenticeships brings value. If people are clear that someone has trained under an employer and been to a recognised college, such additional clarity about the process brings additional value.
I am particularly anxious that the details should be put on the certificate, so that there is absolute certainty about the work-based element, because in that respect there indeed needs to be a degree of gradation or differentiation. I am worried that what are known as employers for the purposes of apprenticeships may actually be training providers whose sole or at least principal job is to offer apprenticeships. That is not the same as doing an apprenticeship with a large degree of work-based, mentored instruction in a large company or an SME. In those terms, what we put on the apprenticeship certificate has value of a different kind that involves the certainty that real work-based learning has taken place. That would be made clear by what the certificate said.
For that reason and because of my determination that apprenticeships should be as rigorous as possible and that that rigour should be as clear as crystal, I am not inclined to withdraw my amendment but inclined to press it to a vote. If the Liberal Democrats wish to press their amendments, they will have the support of the official Opposition. It is not that we do not respect the Ministers remarks, but we feel strongly about the definition of what an apprenticeship is and should be.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Stephen Williams: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. I am still an apprentice in Committee procedure. Presumably that vote was on the first Conservative amendment in the group. Am I allowed to call for a vote on subsequent amendments? The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings implied that I could.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman should have indicated that he wished to press for a vote during the debate when he spoke to his amendment. He also had an opportunity to do so before the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings sat down. Sadly, it is now too late.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Apprenticeship frameworks: interpretation

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 227, in clause 10, page 6, line 2, at end insert
(aa) meet the requirements of the disability accessibility standard, and.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 228, in clause 10, page 6, line 4, at end insert
(2A) In this Chapter disability accessibility standard means specified criteria to ensure the inclusive design of framework and assessment processes to meet the needs of apprentices with learning difficulties..

Annette Brooke: The two amendments apply to framework specifications. Amendment 227 states that specifications must meet the requirements of the disability accessibility standard. Amendment 228 defines the disability accessibility standard. These are probing amendments so I will not press for a vote.
We want reassurances from the Government on the record that frameworks and assessments will be accessible for disabled apprentices. The Bill provides some wonderful potential opportunities for people with disabilities, but it is obviously important that wherever possible, assessment and examination procedures are fully inclusive of disabled apprentices. Reasonable adjustments such as certificate indications or enhancements should be considered only as a last resort.
The amendment was suggested by the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It is particularly anxious that there is recognition of how serous this issue is and of how inequalities for disabled people could be intensified for those who wished to become apprentices, if the framework and assessment procedures are not inclusively designed.

John Hayes: These Liberal Democrat amendments are designed, as the hon. Lady said, to ensure that the appropriate frameworks meet the disability accessibility standard. You will not be surprised to learn, Mrs. Humble, that I am particularly concerned about that, given my interest in disability issues. It is right to ensure that students with learning difficulties are not excluded from apprenticeships and that frameworks are fully inclusive. The Liberal Democrats have done the Committee an important service by drawing this to the Ministers attention and giving him an opportunity to comment on it.
Organisations representing the needs of disabled students support the argument. They make the case that a prescriptive stance on qualifications may disadvantage some disabled learners and that eligibility should be broadened beyond qualifications. However, Skill has also critiqued the lack of statutory guidance in the implementation of assessments in sections 139A and 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. That critique could prove pertinent to these amendments. Skill argued that there was little to no guidance on how local education authorities would identify and assess all learners who needed a learning difficulty assessment, which professional should carry out the assessment and how to identify those with hidden or progressively worsening learning difficulties. The amendments will suffer a similar fate, but having said that, I still think that they serve a purpose in highlighting these matters and by giving the Minister a chance to respond.
The reason for the critique is that it is easy to assume that disability is static; we think, for example, of someone with a spinal injury permanently confined to a wheelchair or someone with a permanent sight problem. However, many disabilities are dynamic in nature and their changing condition changes peoples learning needs and capabilities. Legislation must always be sufficiently flexible to take account of those changes. That would be a reasonable rationale for amending the Bill; nevertheless, the fundamental argument behind the amendmentsthat we need an inclusive programme of vocational learning and apprenticeship frameworks for disabled learnersis well made and deserves amplification and explanation in the Committee.

Siôn Simon: I am extremely sympathetic to the point made by both the hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on this issue. As I said in the oral evidence session this morning, under clause 101, the chief executive of skills funding may provide or secure a range of services to assist effective participation of learners undertaking apprenticeships. We interpret that to include such services as would assist learners with disabilities to access apprenticeships. Therefore, funding for any apprenticeships is designed to support the whole scheme, including any necessary and appropriate support for people with learning difficulties.
As the hon. Lady said, amendment 227 would require all apprenticeship frameworks to meet the disability accessibility standards as defined in amendment 228. Those employing apprentices are already required to comply with the existing Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and will be covered by the provisions in the single equality Bill when it is enacted.

John Hayes: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister let us know the approximate number of apprentices who are disabled? If he does not have that information to hand, could he bring it to the Committee? Is that number growing or falling and how does it break down in terms of type of disability? Those are highly important questions for disabled people and their champions.

Siôn Simon: I will look into that. I understand why he wants to know. I cannot tell him with certainty that that information necessarily exists in a collected and distributable form. I will look for it and if we can find it I will write to the Committee.
The Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for Englandthe overarching standard document which we issued for consultation last month, copies of which are here and have been sent to Members by lettersets out the standards for apprenticeship frameworks. We think that the details of these issues are more appropriately covered under SASE and in that consultation rather than in the Bill. We have invited all those with any interest in the apprenticeship programme, including everybody with an interest in disability and accessibility, to respond to the consultation, currently ongoing and due to report in May. Similar arrangements will apply in Wales, where Welsh Ministers will be consulting on the specification of apprenticeship standards for Wales. Once the respective specifications for England and Wales are in place, under the new arrangements we will also expect the sector skills councils to have regard to particular groups, including but not exclusively those with learning difficulties and disabilities, in preparing and issuing apprenticeship frameworks. We share the commitment of hon. Members to ensuring that apprenticeships are accessible to all members of the community and hope that on the basis of these assurances
Stephen Williamsrose
Mr. Hayesrose

Siôn Simon: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

John Hayes: I was going to defer to the hon. Member for Bristol, West but the Minister has given way to me. While I appreciate that the Minister does not have the numbers to hand, what he will be able to bring to our attention are the steps currently taken to facilitate the kind of outcomes that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I want to see. He has mentioned sector skills councils. He will be able to collate and make available to the Committee information about good practice, where best practice currently exists and how it might be exported. That would be the least we might expect in order to support the assurances he has given about his commitment to the subjects raised by these amendments.

Siôn Simon: I will do my best to find the kind of information and examples the hon. Gentleman is looking for and bring those to the Committee. My point remains that we are committed to do what these amendments seek. There is the power in that phrase in clause 101 which puts a duty on the

Stephen Williams: The Minister referred to clause 101, suggesting that it would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wishes to achieve with our amendments. The explanatory notes for clause 101 say that it simply provides for and gives statutory basis to the national apprenticeships vacancy matching service, which has already been launched. So I am not sure how clause 101 is helpful in this regard. Perhaps the Minister could explain that.

Siôn Simon: Unless I have my numbers wrong, the phrase that we interpret to confer funding of disabled people and those with learning difficulties is effective participation. We interpret that to mean any extra support that any learner might need for any reasons beyond the average or the norm. I have the number wrong, apparently. It is clause 111. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again now that I have given him the right number. The phrase is effective participation. We take that to mean a duty on the chief executive to fund learners and to support learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. They are already covered by the DDA and will be covered by the single equality Bill. We share all the aims and ambitions for them of Opposition Members.

Stephen Williams: I thank the Minister for his clarification. Clause 111 refers to adult apprenticeships. Will this provision that disabled people, whatever their disability, can access an apprenticeship also apply to young apprentices?

Siôn Simon: The clause in question will clearly apply to adults. I am answering for adults and we are dealing with the adult part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners, if pressed or perhaps even spontaneously, may deal with children later on when we come to these points.

Annette Brooke: I am sorry to keep referring to the explanatory notes, but they appear to define clause 111 as assistance for adults with a learning difficulty. My amendment was suggested by the RNIB. We might have someone with a physical disability and no learning disability. I do not think that clause 111 answers my points.

Siôn Simon: In that case, I can only restate what I said to the hon. Lady earlier. Learners with disabilities will be covered under the existing Act. They will be covered in the future Act and they will be covered by the consultation that reports in May and to which disability groups have been specifically asked to contribute. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I am told that clauses 40 and 80 will cover 16 to 18-year-olds. I now realise, in response to the hon. Lady, that the definition of a learning disability in clause 111(3)(b) includes a physical disability.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that there was a bit of thinking while standing. This Bill offers us a real opportunity. We have just been through a very tough process, for example, with Remploy shrinking its factories when it had been moving towards expanding them. It is people who might have gone into sheltered accommodation whom we are particularly looking to support. Not only should the minimum be there, but there should be genuine opportunities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 10, page 6, line 4, at end insert
(c) involve an agreement with an employer to train a person, using the practices, equipment and personnel of his or her enterprise in doing so,
(d) involve a mixture of on and off-the-job learning, and
(e) lead to a generally recognised level of proficiency in a trade, profession or occupation..
As I mentioned earlier, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee criticised the draft Bill for not defining an apprenticeship, despite calling for the
ambitious expansion and strengthening of the Apprenticeship Programme.
The Government have yet to provide such a definition.
I raised the matter with Ministers during the witness session this morning, because there is a line to be trod between being clear about what constitutes an apprenticeship and the impossible business of trying to specify all available apprenticeships in detail. One would not do the latter in guidance, still less in the Bill. However, the Bill could contain a core definition of an apprenticeship. Indeed, amendment 20 would go some way to providing such a definition. It is not an unreasonable definition, but if the Government believe that they can do better, they can refine it. Accordingly, I would be happy to hear from the Minister.
The Minister may say that it is the Governments intention to tighten the Bill in that regard; following my searching questions this morning, Ministers may have put their heads together and agreed to introduce a Government amendment to define apprenticeship more clearly. However, in the absence of such an assurance, it is vital that we proceed with amendment 20.
The Select Committee provided a possible definition, drawn from the Cassels report on reforming modern apprenticeships, published in 2001. That is the inspiration for the amendment. Such definition would exclude programme-led apprenticeships and some level 2 apprenticeshipsones in which the employer has no involvement in training. The Committee argued that
so-called programme-led apprenticeships could provide a useful preparation for an employer-led apprenticeship but they are not apprenticeships within the meaning of the proposals in the draft Bill.
That is certainly in line with what employers expect and want. They want apprenticeships that deliver real competencies. To that end, they want apprenticeships that are carefully and clearly defined.
One reason for my scepticismI would never call it cynicism, for I am not cynical in any elementis that we have heard much about the Governments apprenticeship ambitions. In 2003, when he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister said that there would be 320,000 apprenticeships by 2006. In fact, there were about 239,000. In 2007, he said that he would double the number to 500,000, but the number fell by something like 13,000 in 2008.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said earlier that the expansive targets that have peppered Government announcements on the subject have undermined faith in their determination to increase apprenticeship numbers. But more significantly, to do so with a product that is worthy of the name, apprenticeships should be in line with those in other countries, which are all at level 3, as that would be more in line with public expectations, too.
As I have argued, most people believe that an apprenticeship would be a serious qualification it if was pitched at level 3, if it was employer-based and mentored and if it was in line with learner demands that were truly seductive and that attracted more young people into a golden vocational routea pathway of quality, leading to the opportunity of employment.
The Government should have defined apprenticeships more clearly in the Bill if they were serious about reinvigorating apprenticeships as a core element in the mission to skill the nation more effectively.

Graham Stuart: In light of the data in this area, some of which my hon. Friend has shared with us, did he share my surprise when the Minister said categorically in this mornings sitting that the Government had not missed any of their headline targets for the provision of apprenticeships? If we are to make progress with the Bill, we must do so on the basis of the factsnot the facts as we wish them to be, but as they are. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the Minister will set the record straight when he responds to the amendment?

John Hayes: There are targets, damned targets and the Prime Ministers hyperbole. When he was Chancellor, his hyperbole led us to believe that there was an intention to create 500,000 apprenticeships. I know that it will shock you, Mrs. Humble, as much as it shocked me and that it will distress Committee members to hear that there is a realistic prospect of France achieving 500,000 apprenticeships. Francea country with no history of apprenticeships equivalent to ourshas leapfrogged us in this area. It is a nation with which we compete and with which we aim to compete still more effectively.

Stephen Williams: As the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable about the matter, will he tell us whether France has a statutory definition of an apprentice?

John Hayes: All our principal competitors not only have statutory definitions of apprenticeships, but pitch them at level 3. An apprenticeship in France or Germany is what we call an advanced apprenticeship. As I mentioned earlier, all apprenticeships were level 3 before this Government came to power. That is why they are so fond of saying that there was a big leap in apprenticeship numbers after 1997. As the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee pointed out, that was due largely to the rebadging of much training that was already taking place as apprenticeships and the creation of level 2 apprenticeships accordingly.
We began debating apprenticeship numbers this morning. That debate is contentious because, historically, apprenticeship numbers have been measured using average numbers. The problem with that from the Governments perspective is that it does not necessarily reflect increasing completion rates. Ministers have fairly argued that there has been some progress on completionI freely acknowledge thatbut starts matter too, because they reflect how attractive the product is to young people and to adult apprentices. I am concerned that the record for starts is not as rosy, partly because people do not perceive apprenticeships as having the value that they should have.
I am not saying that there are no great programmes, that great apprenticeships are not taking place in SMEs and major employers or that I do not celebrate people who achieve apprenticeships. I celebrate the young people and less young people who through an apprenticeship gain extra employability and get good jobs. However, problems remain. The main problem is the clarity of definition, the rigour and the Governments willingness to be firm about what constitutes an apprenticeship. That is why we tabled the amendment.
The amendment is in line with the 2001 Cassels report and reflects the findings of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. It builds on the work of Select Committees that have looked into these matters and is inspired by the weight of academic evidence from people such as Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller, whose work is broadly in line with my analysis. If we are going to get this right, let us be clear about it in the Bill. I can see the Minister becoming increasingly persuaded by my argument. As he looks at me across the room, I can see that my seductive oratory has begun

Siôn Simon: I intervene because the ironic satire with which the hon. Gentleman speaks might not be apparent in the written record.

John Hayes: I misinterpreted the Ministers tiredness as my persuasiveness. No, I can see that he is up for it, so I shall keep going. [Hon. Members: No.] I have him on the cusp, and if I can push him over it, he might accept the amendment. Let us have clarity and certainty, and let us send a ringing signal out from the Committee that employers would recognise as a genuine rejuvenation of the apprenticeship system, a statement in the Bill of what we expect an apprenticeship to be.

Stephen Williams: Hon. Members will be relieved that I do not propose to dwell for long on the amendment. We have a lot of ground to cover before 7 oclock. None the less, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on making a reasonable fist of getting a definition of the triangular relationship between the employee, the employer and the training undertaken to complete an apprenticeship. I do not know whether all the words in the amendment are his or whether he had some assistance in the drafting, but the only word I would quibble with is profession. I think that to be in a professional someone must complete a qualification verified by a professional institute, so we should be careful about the language that we use and about whether we refer to apprentices or professionally qualified people. But on balance, if he wishes to press the amendment to a vote, we, or rather I as the only Member of my party left in the room, could support it.

Siôn Simon: I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West for his brevity. My friend, the hon. Gentleman who leads for the official Opposition on the Committee said that he has no bone of cynicism in his body. Knowing him as I do and have done for a while, I was then minded to rise in agreement and to say that he is one of the less cynical people whom I know. People who know him would say that he is far more a romantic than a cynic, and good for him. But he then disappointed by going on to the most cynical set of disingenuities.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the Prime Ministers moving targets, for example. He repeated the inaccurate statement about missing the Prime Ministers targets, and in the oral evidence session, he said that the Prime Minister, while Chancellor, led us to believe that there was a real intention to create more apprenticeships. We have lots of real targets about which we are scrupulous, all of which we have either hit or are well ahead of hitting. For instance, this morning in the oral evidence session, the hon. Gentleman said clearlyhe does this kind of thing oftenthat apprenticeship starts were higher in 2003 than last year. That is simply not the case. In 2003, they were at their highest level for a decade. Off the top of my head, there were something like 203,000 or 204,000 starts in 2003, and there were 225,000 in 2007-08. The truth is that completions and starts have gone up and up.

Graham Stuart: Can the Minister tell us a little about the numbers at level 3 over the past decade or so?

Siôn Simon: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the numbers at level 3no, I cannot tell him, actually. Yes, I can

Graham Stuart: Are they up or down?

Siôn Simon: Numbers at level 3 are clearly up, and they were up last year from the year before. Level 3 as a proportion is also slightly up, although it has remained broadly stable for a long time.
This is the key point. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that what employers want is level 3 apprenticeships. If that is what they really want, why are almost 200,000 employers choosing voluntarily to recruit and pay for level 2 apprentices? Some employers want level 2 apprentices and some want both level 2 and level 3 apprentices. It is employers who lead this market and who determine the kind of apprentice that is employed.
Does the hon. Member for Bristol, West want to intervene before I move on to the substance of the amendment and away from the knockabout?

Stephen Williams: I can assure the Minister that this is not knockabout; I simply believe that factual information should be placed on the record and he said that he did not have that information. The House of Commons Library very helpfully gives us some statistics. The number of advanced apprenticeships is lower than it was 10 years ago, at 72,900 starts in 2007-08 as opposed to 76,800 in 1999-2000. Given that level 2 apprenticeships have risen over that period, as seems to be generally acknowledged, that means that advanced apprenticeships have also fallen as a proportion of the total. I am just putting this on the record to be helpful, but in both cases I do not think that the Minister was entirely accurate.

Siôn Simon: I am not going to continue the knockabout any further. I stand by what I said previously and I am happy to do the knockabout another time. I am conscious that I have only seven or eight minutes to deal with the substance of the amendment.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings clearly wants a very short definition of an apprenticeship in the Bill and the hon. Member for Bristol, West seems to want the same thing. The reason that there is not a short definition is that employers do not want one, because it is potentially constraining and inflexible. If it should happen that the 13th word of the definition does not fit with their slightly unconventional situation, all of a sudden their apprenticeship will not be deemed an apprenticeship.
The fact is that, as I said this morning, parts 1 and 4, as far as I am concerned, provide a definition of an apprenticeship. That is what the Bill does; it defines an apprenticeship in great detail, at great length and makes it absolutely clear. It does not define an apprenticeship in 14 words. That is because if we defined it in 14 words, we would hamstring the users and the employers and rob them of flexibility. There is no need to provide a short definition.

John Hayes: I can reassure the Minister that I am not cynical in the slightest; it is a mix of playfulness and insight, which he mistook for cynicism. Will he give me just one example of an employer who would regard the wording in this amendment as so inflexible that they could not build their apprenticeship around that definition? I cannot think of a single example. If he can give me one or two, or five or 10, I would be delighted to hear them.

Siôn Simon: The point that I am making is not that there is necessarily an inherent contradiction or an obvious flaw in the wording of the hon. Gentlemans amendment, but that to provide a very short and what might be called a core definition, as he wants to do, potentially hamstrings people and provides inflexibility, in the way that having a very detailed, substantive definitionwhich the definition in the Bill isdoes not do and specifically seeks to avoid doing.
I support the intention that apprenticeships must involve a mixture of on-the-job training and structured learning that takes place away from the immediate work station and leads to competence in the relevant trade, profession or occupation. We know that that is what an apprenticeship is and all those elements are provided in the Bill as drafted.
The SASE, which is currently out for consultation, requires all frameworks to set out the principal qualificationnamely, the level of knowledge and competence required to complete the frameworkand requires all frameworks to specify the minimum number of guided learning hours to be delivered away from the work station. The apprenticeship agreement will require both the apprentice and the employer to agree the levels of on-the-job training and structured learning away from the work station. We are committed to high-quality apprenticeships as an employer-led experience. That is why we are putting this whole specification on a statutory basis. We are strengthening the requirements that all frameworks must meet and we are introducing an apprenticeship agreement as a contract of service between an apprentice and his or her employer. Taken together, these will deliver a high quality apprenticeship.

Graham Stuart: I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the SASE specifies the amount of time to be spent training away from the work station but provides no requirement as to the amount of time to be spent at work as part of the apprenticeship, to check that it is a genuine job.

Siôn Simon: Regarding the first point, the SASE specifies the amount of time to be spent away from the work station because, although we have not focused on it much this afternoon, that is an important part of an apprenticeship. The apprenticeship must be based in a job, but it must also include high-quality, guided and instructed formal learning.
As for why the amount of time that has to be spent at work is not specified, as I said, where else could that job take place? It is a truism to say that a job has to be at work. Who are these employers who are going to employ people, hire them, train them but divorce them from the workplace? We do not believe that that is an issue. The issue is the quality, specificity and the wide scope of definition that we have in the Bill. Parts 1 and 4 give us a high-quality definition of what an apprenticeship is, how the system works, and how it can deliver skills and training for learners and skilled learners for businesses and employers, which is what we need. On that basis, I encourage the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, although I understand his motivations, to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes: If the history of apprenticeships were rather different, if we had not had analysis that suggests that some apprenticeships are not work-based, or at least have not been so historically, if academics had not claimedI think authoritativelythat it has been possible to be an apprentice historically without setting a single foot in the workplace, if we did not know that some of the so-called employers are training providers whose job it is to sell apprenticeships and nothing else, and if we did not have the difficulty of programme-led apprenticeships, which the Minister implicitly and intrinsically acknowledged were a problem, then I might be minded to withdraw the amendment. But as all those things are so, it is critical that we define what an apprenticeship constitutes on the face of the Bill. That is in the interests of all of us who want apprenticeships to be of growing significance in meeting Britains skills gap to make our country more economically competitive. I do not doubt that he shares that ambition and I invite him to vote with the Opposition when I press this matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. (Ms Butler.)

Adjourned till Thursday 12 March at Nine oclock.